Election tribunal composition and tribunal location may differ without violating equal protection or altering High Court jurisdiction.

Different election tribunals composed of District Judges and retired High Court Judges were treated as constitutionally permissible because Article 14 requires treatment of tribunals exercising the same powers and functions, not identity of status among their members. The Election Commission's classification in constituting tribunals was upheld as rationally connected to the statutory object and administrative need for independent, expeditious adjudication. The power to fix the tribunal's place of sitting was also held not to alter or enlarge the High Court's constitutional appellate jurisdiction, since the statutory appellate forum depended on the tribunal's location.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appointment of election tribunals composed of District Judges in some cases and retired High Court Judges in others offended Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii) whether the classification adopted by the Election Commission in constituting different tribunals was reasonable; (iii) whether the power to fix the place of sitting of an election tribunal could alter the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the appointment of election tribunals composed of District Judges in some cases and retired High Court Judges in others offended Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The constitutional guarantee against discrimination was held to require that similar cases be tried by tribunals exercising the same powers and performing the same functions, not that the individual members of such tribunals must be identical in status or qualification. Since every election tribunal under the statute exercised the same powers and discharged the same functions, the mere fact that some members were District Judges and others retired High Court Judges did not by itself create forbidden discrimination.

Conclusion: The appointment of different categories of persons as members of election tribunals did not violate Article 14.

Issue (ii): Whether the classification adopted by the Election Commission in constituting different tribunals was reasonable.

Analysis: The statutory scheme left the choice of members to the Election Commission, which could appoint either District Judges or retired High Court Judges. The classification was examined in the setting of election petitions against different categories of candidates, particularly the apparent treatment of petitions concerning Ministers differently from others. Such a distinction was held to bear a rational relation to the object of the law and to the administrative considerations underlying tribunal appointments, including expedient and independent adjudication.

Conclusion: The classification was reasonable and was not hit by Article 14.

Issue (iii): Whether the power to fix the place of sitting of an election tribunal could alter the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under the Constitution.

Analysis: The appellate forum under the statute depended on the situation of the tribunal, and not on the place where the election arose. The constitutional scheme governing High Court jurisdiction was held to be consistent with the statutory provisions authorising the Commission to appoint the place of sitting of the tribunal. Fixing the tribunal at a particular place did not amount to conferring jurisdiction on a High Court beyond its constitutional limits.

Conclusion: The power to direct the place of sitting of the tribunal did not vary or unlawfully enlarge High Court jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on all grounds, and the challenge to the tribunal proceedings was repelled.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 14 is not infringed merely because adjudicatory bodies exercising the same statutory powers are composed of different qualified individuals, and the location of a tribunal may validly determine the statutory appellate forum without altering constitutional High Court jurisdiction.

---